BBC Focus Magazine

[purnima]

What evidence indicates that global warming is false? I hear a lot of contradictory things about global warming, and I don't even know where to start. Anybody know a thing or two that they want to share that falsifies/verifies global warming?

[KingPhillip]

People may question my scientific application, but ...

The scientist who has been at the forefront questioning the science behind the claim of global warming finally accepted the scientific data of global warming. He accepts nothing else. No inference, no postulation, no extrapolation. Just global warming.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Back in the 1970's I remember we were all worried about an impending ice age and the idea that the Earth might start getting warmer wasn't taken very seriously at all.
However as atmospheric CO2 levels rose along with unexpected warming of the Earths surface it was suggested that the CO2 was creating a greenhouse effect by trapping more solar heat energy than was being lost thus resulting in an inexorable rise in temperatures.The Greenhouse effect was actually suggested way back in 1842 by a French mathematician called Joseph Fourier. Although I don't think it was actually proved until 1858 when the Irish physicist John Tyndall constructed a closed container experiment.

Anyway, CO2 caused waming case closed.

So given the science behind it I was only too happy to accept that rising global temperatures were the result of rising CO2 levels.............. but, after a while it became evident that global temperatures were not rising in line with rising CO2 levels, indeed they continue to lag a long way behind and given that the entire man-made global warming idea was now being based on computer models many people, myself included, began to have some serious doubts as to whether it all made any sense.

However a couple of controlling factors have to be taken into account.
First of all the environment can absorb a vast amount of CO2 with great quantities 'washed' out of the atmosphere by rainfall ending up in the oceans and absorbed by vegetation.
And secondly the amount of ice lost from all around the planet over the last 50 years has been simply enormous and this process of converting ice into water requires a substantial amount of heat energy thus acting as a effective 'heat-sink' limiting the upward trend.

This leads to the worrying conclusion that once all the ice has gone (which will take thousands of years so don't worry too much) and CO2 levels have not been reduced global termperatures will rise unchecked with the possibilty that the Earth could become uninhabtable over time.

As Kingphillip points out Man-made Global Warming is put forward with rather aggressive conviction, but then if it is correct, well then we are looking to an uncertain future because CO2 levels are continuing to rise seemingy unchecked despite all the blustering and debate by politicians

One thing still bugs me though, the melting ice from glaciers should have been finding its way into the oceans and yet, despite many claims that sea levels are rising, there is absolutley no actual evidence that they are rising any faster than they have been since the end of the last ice-age.

[M Paul Lloyd]

We have quite a lot on the subject here by the way.
global-warming-climate-change-the-environment-etc-t1275.html

[Hayden]

Global warming can be pretty nasty. The icecaps "melt", and a bunch of "nice" terrain like grasslands turns into swampland. Screws things up royally for a while, especially if you have "balanced" your cities so they have 0 surplus food.

As to probability of GW, I have not seen a formula for it, but it is definitely dependent on number of squares polluted and number of turns. Do you know how to daisy-chain Engineers to get something done in one turn? I suggest you double up nearby Engineers, calling them off ongoing work projects if available. Two Eng on one skull should clear it in the current turn, one precharged one will do it by themselves. Just target the minimum number of tiles to get under nine tiles this turn, then go on to the rest next turn.

[Shadowwolf]

Hi Hayden.

Ummm, this is a thread on actual global warming in the real world, not Civilisation unfortunately.


Oh silly me, this was another spammer responding to a thread started by a spammer.

Good riddance.

[Liam Sheppard]

The world has cycles where Ice ages come and go, and then interstadial periods

"of a relatively warm period during a glacial epoch, when glaciers temporarily stop or retreat" (yourdictionary.com)

we are near the end of one of these periods now apparently.

[Finntroll]

Some excellent points regarding global warming and climate change here.

One of the mean reasons for doubt over the correlation between greenhouse gasses and global temperatures is that we have conducted thousands of lab experiments and they have been conclusive, as Paul Lloyd correctly pointed out, in laboratory tests. The world is not a laboratory and there where a fair few positive natural feedback mechanises that computer models where not programmed to include back in the 90s. Not through fraud or other propaganda the denier’s camp come up with but purely because this is an area man still has much to learn. It was only in the early 90s that degrees in climatology came around; before that is was all astrophysics or geologists etc.

The attitude from either side of the debate, both alarmists and deniers, think that this is case closed and we know everything. That isn’t really how science works, nor is it even close to being in anyway accurate. Its progressive and our understanding and knowledge are forever growing. I guess you could say it’s never ending. What annoys me the most is the denier’s camp making up lies and trying to derail scientific research. I agree many of the predictions have been wrong, but that does not automatically mean all climate research is wrong.

I found a web site called sceptical science, this gives the more scientific understanding and facts and not the political view. It’s a decent site with many topics covered at beginner and advanced levels of understanding.

http://www.skepticalscience.com

I have to admit, from other forums I have used and the extensive research I have done, the deniers make many claims and have very little creditable research to support that this is a 30 year cycle, its all natural, its not happening, it’s a con to stealth tax us and whatever else they spout.

[Lateralman]

It is not a thirty-year cycle. How old are you? Were you even around thirty years ago?

Excuse me while I put on my snorkel.

[Finntroll]

It is not a thirty-year cycle. How old are you? Were you even around thirty years ago?

Excuse me while I put on my snorkel.

I assume you are refering to me? If you are, yes, I was around 30 years ago.

[Shadowwolf]

Don't mind him, I don't think he knows what he's typing at times

I have to admit, from other forums I have used and the extensive research I have done, the deniers make many claims and have very little creditable research

That's because using science would not produce the results they want, so when they can't use science they must resort to spoof, obfuscating rhetoric and the courts of public opinion and law where the best sounding argument can play better than the scientific facts.

Same tactic you see every group who stands against a science position take and why these folks often run to the courts to silence the opposition rather than refute with evidence and reason.

[Finntroll]

Don't mind him, I don't think he knows what he's typing at times

I have to admit, from other forums I have used and the extensive research I have done, the deniers make many claims and have very little creditable research

That's because using science would not produce the results they want, so when they can't use science they must resort to spoof, obfuscating rhetoric and the courts of public opinion and law where the best sounding argument can play better than the scientific facts.

Same tactic you see every group who stands against a science position take and why these folks often run to the courts to silence the opposition rather than refute with evidence and reason.

Very well put.

This is where I see a clear difference between sceptics (which I include my self in this) and a denier. Sceptics take a more balanced scientific approach to the subject. Looking a the evidence to support or disprove a subject. Denier's, well they simply throw mud and hope it sticks, using the very tactics you described.

I freely admit that I believe climate change is happening, but not at the rate that is claimed however. From what I read and have learned, much of this area is still grey and needs further research.

I also believe (from research) that greenhouse gas emissions are only a small proportion of the overall problem. The bigger issue is how man has interfered and inadvertently caused the planets natural cycle to "go off course" if you will. Such as deforestation on a huge scale, industrial ocean pollution, depleting the earth natural resources, overpopulation and so on, I am sure you understand where I am coming from here.

The earth has a cycle, which we have abused and the planet cant keep up with our demand. We have to change our way of life and live within our means.

[Lateralman]

Why didn’t you say that in the first place? Anyone stepped outside the lab lately?
It is supposed to be the middle of winter and my daffs are as happy as daisies.

Here I am with the vision whilst the rest of the world wears blinkers.

Actually chaps, breaking news, the well renowned oceanographer and climatologist the man from Atlantis informs me that there is nothing to worry about as it is only a thirty-year cycle.

In the meantime, I am off to build a beach hut on top of Ben Nevis. All are welcome; bring your own barometer, standing room only.

[MikeG]

I have no doubt that global warming is real, but maybe its not all doom and gloom though. These changes may actually be offsetting a global drop in temperatures. So although we can work on reducing pollution and emissions, the lingering rise in temperatures may be the side-effect that was beneficial.

Earth could be entering a new Ice Age within the next millennium, but it might not, the deep freeze averted by warming from increased carbon dioxide emissions. Humans could be thwarting the next glacial inception, a new study says.

Even in the comparatively long time scales of Earth history, we’re kind of overdue for another ice age — our current Holocene era has lasted about 11,600 years, roughly 600 years longer than the average interglacial (between-ice-age) periods of the past. If atmospheric CO2 levels were lower, the next ice age might have started sometime within the next 1,000 years, according to researchers from University College London and Cambridge University.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-01/human-co2-emissions-could-avert-next-ice-age-study-says

[Liam Sheppard]

I thought that it was a 30,000 year cycle? The last Ice age

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=ice+age+cycles&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&tbas=0&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=4-t5I-IT6hKTyM:&imgrefurl=http://daphne.palomar.edu/scrout/AIS120/I%2520Indigen.htm&docid=drD9dtsFC8NaAM&imgurl=http://daphne.palomar.edu/scrout/AIS120/Ice_Age_Cycles.jpg&w=731&h=426&ei=B_kJT_zJOYf28gO-g4jNAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=181&vpy=120&dur=4850&hovh=171&hovw=294&tx=252&ty=157&sig=109508331106663854339&page=1&tbnh=125&tbnw=215&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0

[M Paul Lloyd]

I was under the impression that Milankovitch climate cycles, that were thought to have been key, are no longer considered valid?

[Liam Sheppard]

why not?

[Finntroll]

I thought that it was a 30,000 year cycle? The last Ice age

Denier's knock a few zero's off the end and hope no one notices.

[Finntroll]

I was under the impression that Milankovitch climate cycles, that were thought to have been key, are no longer considered valid?

Not sure how accurate this is but on wiki scroll down to the problem section. There are a list of issues with this formula apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

This was research conducted back in the first world war so I imagine logically that his hypothesis was not all together accurate.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I have to admit to having an aversion to Wiki but it does illustrate the point rather well, thanks Fintroll.
The idea that variations in the Earths orbit brought about extreme climate change was quite compelling in the absence of corroborative data but like so many theories it just doesn't stack up.

Something that has troubled me from the outset with all of this is that samples taken from ice cores and sedimentary deposits seem to suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels were very high (much higher than today) during some of the major glaciation periods in Earths history which seems to suggest that other factors were largely responsible.

Flakkarin has a theory on this as it happens, and she should know.
can-increased-volcanism-trigger-the-onset-of-glaciations-t566.html